The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology appraisal No.150 and part review of technology appraisal No. 118): a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast and lung cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Recently, targeted agents have become available including anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents, for example cetuximab and panitumumab, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor agents, for example bevacizumab. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab monotherapy and cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy) for Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) wild-type (WT) patients, and bevacizumab in combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy, for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: The assessment comprises a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, from 2005 to November 2010. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab, bevacizumab or panitumumab in participants with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS WT status that has progressed after first-line chemotherapy (for cetuximab and panitumumab) or participants with metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after first-line chemotherapy (bevacizumab). All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Synthesis was mainly narrative. An economic model was developed focusing on third-line and subsequent lines of treatment. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The searches identified 7745 titles and abstracts. Two clinical trials (reported in 12 papers) were included. No data were available for bevacizumab in combination with non-oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in previously treated patients. Neither of the included studies had KRAS status performed prospectively, but the studies did report retrospective analyses of the results for the KRAS WT subgroups. Third-line treatment with cetuximab plus best supportive care or panitumumab plus best supportive care appears to have statistically significant advantages over treatment with best supportive care alone in patients with KRAS WT status. For the economic evaluation, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for KRAS WT patients for cetuximab compared with best supportive care is £98,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for panitumumab compared with best supportive care is £150,000 per QALY and for cetuximab plus irinotecan compared with best supportive care is £88,000 per QALY. All ICERs are sensitive to treatment duration. LIMITATIONS: In the specific populations of interest, there is a lack of evidence on bevacizumab, cetuximab and cetuximab plus irinotecan used second line and on bevacizumab and cetuximab plus irinotecan used third line. For cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment for KRAS WT people, there is no direct evidence on progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab appear to be clinically beneficial for KRAS WT patients compared with best supportive care, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT for patients with KRAS WT status receiving cetuximab plus irinotecan. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nilotinib and dasatinib are now being considered as alternative treatments to imatinib as a first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). OBJECTIVE: This technology assessment reviews the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. DATA SOURCES: Databases [including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website] were searched from search end date of the last technology appraisal report on this topic in October 2002 to September 2011. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies; a review of surrogate relationships with survival; a review and critique of manufacturer submissions; and a model-based economic analysis. RESULTS: Two clinical trials (dasatinib vs imatinib and nilotinib vs imatinib) were included in the effectiveness review. Survival was not significantly different for dasatinib or nilotinib compared with imatinib with the 24-month follow-up data available. The rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were higher for patients receiving dasatinib than for those with imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 83% vs 72%, p < 0.001; MMR 46% vs 28%, p < 0.0001). The rates of CCyR and MMR were higher for patients receiving nilotinib than for those receiving imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 80% vs 65%, p < 0.001; MMR 44% vs 22%, p < 0.0001). An indirect comparison analysis showed no difference between dasatinib and nilotinib for CCyR or MMR rates for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR, odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.92; MMR, odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16). There is observational association evidence from imatinib studies supporting the use of CCyR and MMR at 12 months as surrogates for overall all-cause survival and progression-free survival in patients with CML in chronic phase. In the cost-effectiveness modelling scenario, analyses were provided to reflect the extensive structural uncertainty and different approaches to estimating OS. First-line dasatinib is predicted to provide very poor value for money compared with first-line imatinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of between £256,000 and £450,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conversely, first-line nilotinib provided favourable ICERs at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Immaturity of empirical trial data relative to life expectancy, forcing either reliance on surrogate relationships or cumulative survival/treatment duration assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: From the two trials available, dasatinib and nilotinib have a statistically significant advantage compared with imatinib as measured by MMR or CCyR. Taking into account the treatment pathways for patients with CML, i.e. assuming the use of second-line nilotinib, first-line nilotinib appears to be more cost-effective than first-line imatinib. Dasatinib was not cost-effective if decision thresholds of £20,000 per QALY or £30,000 per QALY were used, compared with imatinib and nilotinib. Uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis would be substantially reduced with better and more UK-specific data on the incidence and cost of stem cell transplantation in patients with chronic CML. FUNDING: The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bilateral multichannel cochlear implants in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, approximately 10 000 people have cochlear implants, more than 99% with a unilateral implant. Evidence shows that adults implanted bilaterally may benefit from binaural advantages; however, systematic review evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To conduct a systematic review to discover the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using bilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss by comparing their effectiveness with unilateral cochlear implantation or unilateral cochlear implantation and acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: This examined 16 electronic databases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies. EVALUATION METHOD: Abstracts were independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two researchers, and disagreements were resolved. Selected papers were then retrieved and further independently assessed in a similar way. Included studies had their data extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: Searches yielded 2892 abstracts producing 19 includable studies. Heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis. However, all studies reported that bilateral cochlear implants improved hearing and speech perception: one randomised controlled trial found a significant binaural benefit over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front (12.6 ± 5.4%, P < 0.001) and when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear (21 ± 6%, P < 0.001); and another found a significant benefit for spatial hearing at 3 and 9 months post-implantation compared with pre-implantation [mean difference (sd) scores: 3 months = 1.46 (0.83-2.09), P < 0.01].Quality of life results varied, showing bilateral implantation may improve quality of life in the absence of worsening tinnitus. Limited cost-effectiveness evidence showed that bilateral implantation is probably only cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold above £62 000 per quality adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inconsistency in the quality of available evidence, the robustness of systematic review methods gives weight to the positive findings of included studies demonstrating that bilateral implantation is clinically effective in adults but unlikely to be cost-effective.

Ofatumumab for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in patients who are refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab: a critique of the submission from GSK.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ofatumumab for the treatment of refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), based upon the manufacturer's submission (MS) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence included one study: a non-randomised, single-arm study. Two other studies were identified but both were non-comparative and provided evidence for therapies other than ofatumumab. For this reason these studies were not discussed in full in the main body of the submission. In the Hx-CD20-406 study, the overall response rate was 58% (99% confidence interval 40% to 74%, p < 0.001). Complete resolution of constitutional symptoms and improved performance status occurred in 57% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were 5.7 and 13.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events during treatment were infusion reactions and infections, which were primarily grade 1 or 2 events. The MS concluded that ofatumumab provides a new, effective and well-tolerated therapy for patients with CLL who are refractory to both fludarabine and alemtuzumab [double refractory (DR)]. The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG had a number of concerns regarding the manufacturer's estimates of effectiveness based on evidence from a single-arm, non-randomised study. An 'area-under-the-curve' or 'partitioned-survival' model was used to project expected clinical and economic outcomes for patients with DR CLL who were assumed to receive ofatumumab or best supportive care (BSC). The model had a three-state structure: 'alive pre-progression', 'alive post progression' and 'dead'. Overall, the modelling approach is reasonable given the limited evidence available for the drug in the patient population under review. However, a number of uncertainties were identified in the economic evaluation; for example, the BSC arm used data from patients in the Hx-CD20-406 study who did not respond to ofatumumab treatment - 'non-responders' - and the ofatumumab arm used data from all of those treated in the Hx-CD20-406 study. Further uncertainty arose regarding the choice of utilities, the omission of 17p and 11q chromosomal deletions as factors in the Cox proportional hazards models for PFS and OS, and the omission of the costs of drugs in progressive disease. It was felt that these factors biased cost-effectiveness in favour of ofatumumab. When revisions were made to the assumptions in the model based on the ERG's review of the published and submitted evidence, the revised base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ofatumumab increased to £ 81,500 per quality-adjusted life-year. The final appraisal determination was issued by NICE in September 2010 (www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12264/50758/50758.pdf).

Everolimus for the second-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell cancer: a critique of the submission from Novartis.

This paper represents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) which has progressed following or on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab), compared to BSC alone. The submitting manufacturer's case for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was mainly based on a well-conducted randomised controlled trial (RCT), Renal Cell Cancer Treatment with Oral RAD001 Given Daily-1 (RECORD-1), comparing BSC plus everolimus with BSC plus placebo and a de novo economic model. The RCT indicated a marked statistically significant effect on progression-free survival. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimate was 52,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (this included a reduction in drug cost associated with an approved patient access scheme). The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG was generally in agreement with the submitting manufacturer concerning its estimates of effectiveness; however, there was greater concern surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness. The ERG judged that if potential errors in the model were corrected, the ICERs offered by the submitting manufacturer would overstate the cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the second-line treatment of metastatic RCC (that this ICER would be a higher value). Concerning the estimates of cost-effectiveness in RCC, the observations in the ERG report provide strong further support for research collecting rigorous estimates of utilities associated with the main health states likely to be experienced by patients with renal cell cancer. At the time of writing, NICE was yet to issue the Appraisal Consultation Document for this appraisal.